Mueller Redevelopment Update Thread

[KevinFromTexas]

I think West Campus and Mueller are going to be two of the most cohesive and self sustaining neighborhoods in the city. West Campus especially has got to be the most urban neighborhood in Austin. It's really a different place than the rest of the city. Mueller will sort of be that way, but less dense since there are fewer tall buildings and will feel less urban in places. Riverside will be pretty urban and have that connected feel I guess, but less so along with South Lamar since they're mostly just urban infill along a major arterial road. Riverside has the benefit of a full service grocery store nearby, while South Lamar has to rely on the Target for that. I can't remember, does the Ben White Target have groceries?

[audiomuse]

I have a lot of hope for Mueller. Right now, it does have that "mass-produced", sterile vibe. However, I believe it will get better as it ages and a greater diversity of businesses and residents moves in. The town center will really bring the development together and give people a place to walk and congregate. The fact that there is still so much under construction might be the reason why it still doesn't feel like a neighborhood.

[Syndic]

Calling Mueller suburban is like calling East Austin suburban. If you want to call it that, I understand, but you can't honestly call it suburban while also not calling East Austin suburban. That would be hypocritical. You'd be favoring East Austin just because it's older and more established.

In many ways, Mueller is intended to be a mirror image of East Austin, only newer, nicer, and a bit denser. Many of the houses look about the same size and style (See: Example 1 and Example 2) And, in fact, Mueller is much denser, overall. The problem is that people aren't comparing Mueller to East Austin, they're comparing it to West Campus or downtown. I have my own criticisms of Mueller (like the fact that it uses parks as a buffer zone to segregate it from the surrounding neighborhoods, making it like a gated community), but we should focus less on what it's potential was and appreciate it more for what it is (denser, in fact, than most places in Austin) and what it's not (Wells Branch or Cedar Park).

[nixcity]

That Target has a very limited amount of groceries but you have to remember they just opened the Wheatville right there too.

[Austin_Expert]

Originally Posted by nixcity

That Target has a very limited amount of groceries but you have to remember they just opened the Wheatville right there too.

The Target has more than a very limited amount of groceries. You could do all of your grocery shopping there if needed. There is also Whole Foods, Sprouts, Central Market, and the HEB at Congress and Oltorf nearby. Trader Joe's and Wheatsville Co-op will open in the area in the not too distant future. Also, I believe the Alamo Drafthouse redevelopment may include a small grocer.

[M1EK]

1. There were VMU buildings before Mueller. The ordinance itself didn't exist, but plenty of older buildings in Austin are VMU.

2. Mueller is still fundamentally suburban - it's just moderate density suburban. Nobody walks anywhere but the park - which is true in many suburban neighborhoods too. Suburban is a style, not a number and not a location; there are townhome developments in the DC suburbs that approach parts of West Campus in density but everybody still has to drive.

Things like the design of the HEB; the fact that they went with the strip malls first; the strict horizontal separation of uses (so far); the still vaporware Town Center...

3. To state that Mueller would have been empty with a more dense plan is just stupid. We're in a huge rental crunch. Anybody could go in there and build a bunch of 10-story apartment buildings, rent them at market rate, and be full in weeks. This has been true for most of the last decade. (I'm a landlord; I know). The reason Mueller's being built so slow is due to a lack of resources from the management team and the somewhat low profitability forced on them by the stupid plan.

4. You don't get vibrant urban neighborhoods by over-planning. You get them by platting, setting a few rules, and SELLING. Let the market build each plot separately with some compatibility rules and the thing'd probably have been built out by now, and would look a lot more like Hyde Park than Plum Creek!

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by M1EK

1. There were VMU buildings before Mueller. The ordinance itself didn't exist, but plenty of older buildings in Austin are VMU.

2. Mueller is still fundamentally suburban - it's just moderate density suburban. Nobody walks anywhere but the park - which is true in many suburban neighborhoods too. Suburban is a style, not a number and not a location; there are townhome developments in the DC suburbs that approach parts of West Campus in density but everybody still has to drive.

Things like the design of the HEB; the fact that they went with the strip malls first; the strict horizontal separation of uses (so far); the still vaporware Town Center...

3. To state that Mueller would have been empty with a more dense plan is just stupid. We're in a huge rental crunch. Anybody could go in there and build a bunch of 10-story apartment buildings, rent them at market rate, and be full in weeks. This has been true for most of the last decade. (I'm a landlord; I know). The reason Mueller's being built so slow is due to a lack of resources from the management team and the somewhat low profitability forced on them by the stupid plan.

4. You don't get vibrant urban neighborhoods by over-planning. You get them by platting, setting a few rules, and SELLING. Let the market build each plot separately with some compatibility rules and the thing'd probably have been built out by now, and would look a lot more like Hyde Park than Plum Creek!

1. Not sure what that point is getting at. There were VMU buildings back in the day before the city outlawed them. And then they have come back somewhat (very reluctantly and with great pains to make it as difficult as possible) are allowing VMU in a few designated transit corridors and Mueller. I think you and I would like the city to allow this pretty much everywhere. At least for now Mueller is one of the few places in town this is allowed.

2. Outside of the NW commercial district this is just wrong. It is no more fundamentally suburban than Hyde Park and Clarksville are (two neighborhoods I also know very well having live most of my life in them). As a matter of fact, it has the potential to be far more urban than those neighborhoods as they are under restrictive COA landuse policies that are not applicable to the PUD and both have some of the most hostile neighborhood groups in the city to urban development which NIMBYism does not exist in Mueller who's residents are far more pro-urban than the NIMBYs of Hyde Park and Clarksville. The buildings can go higher, the homes are not subject to McMansion and have different impervious cover limitations, there will be a ton more options for having shopping, theaters, restaurants, cafes, all with an easy 5-10 minute walk or 2-5 minute bike ride of not only Mueller residents but also Delwood, Cherrywood, Windsor Park and University Hills residents who are benefiting greatly by Mueller. Not a single home has a garage in front. All streets have on-street parking and almost all are quite narrow to discourage quick traffic, it is build on a grid - nary a cul de sac in the entire development.

3. Mueller has build several large apartment buildings already (Mosaic, Elements, Wildflower) and the AMLI just broke ground and I can pretty much guarantee you this will continue for some time now. I really don't think you grasp what 2008 did to real estate markets but I can assure you from working on the inside that there was no money, no money whatsoever available for quite some time. Development did hit pause for a while, everywhere and is back in full swing. In five years, assuming the market is still there you will indeed see a bunch new apartment buildings (and condos, and town homes and garden court homes and sf yard homes and carriage houses/granny flats).

4. I don't know what universe you live in that you think it was realistic that the City of Austin was going to allow a developer to file a plat with no plan, ask for it to be exempted all those pesky city ordinances that inhibit urbanism from occurring in most of the rest of Austin, and just say - trust me, this will all work out, the market will decide. That wouldn't remotely be realistic and anyone who has worked with the city in any capacity (such as sitting on a transportation board) would know full well. And if Mueller wasn't planned and exempted from the city land-use policies then guess what would have happened
- the worst kind of sub-ubranism imaginable.

Mueller isn't perfect but it is moving the city in the right direction - the direction that you happen to be one of the loudest voices in favor of.

Or to look at your critique from a different angle, if Mueller is really suburban, as you charge, then I'm going to have to change my position on sub urbanism. Because if being dense, walkable, mixed use, variety of housing options, close to CBD, with shops, restaurants, theaters, businesses, employment centers, is suburban, then bring on suburban.

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by Komeht

1. Not sure what that point is getting at. There were VMU buildings back in the day before the city outlawed them. And then they have come back somewhat (very reluctantly and with great pains to make it as difficult as possible) are allowing VMU in a few designated transit corridors and Mueller. I think you and I would like the city to allow this pretty much everywhere. At least for now Mueller is one of the few places in town this is allowed.

2. Outside of the NW commercial district this is just wrong. It is no more fundamentally suburban than Hyde Park and Clarksville are (two neighborhoods I also know very well having live most of my life in them). As a matter of fact, it has the potential to be far more urban than those neighborhoods as they are under restrictive COA landuse policies that are not applicable to the PUD and both have some of the most hostile neighborhood groups in the city to urban development which NIMBYism does not exist in Mueller who's residents are far more pro-urban than the NIMBYs of Hyde Park and Clarksville. The buildings can go higher, the homes are not subject to McMansion and have different impervious cover limitations, there will be a ton more options for having shopping, theaters, restaurants, cafes, all with an easy 5-10 minute walk or 2-5 minute bike ride of not only Mueller residents but also Delwood, Cherrywood, Windsor Park and University Hills residents who are benefiting greatly by Mueller. Not a single home has a garage in front. All streets have on-street parking and almost all are quite narrow to discourage quick traffic, it is build on a grid - nary a cul de sac in the entire development.

3. Mueller has build several large apartment buildings already (Mosaic, Elements, Wildflower) and the AMLI just broke ground and I can pretty much guarantee you this will continue for some time now. I really don't think you grasp what 2008 did to real estate markets but I can assure you from working on the inside that there was no money, no money whatsoever available for quite some time. Development did hit pause for a while, everywhere and is back in full swing. In five years, assuming the market is still there you will indeed see a bunch new apartment buildings (and condos, and town homes and garden court homes and sf yard homes and carriage houses/granny flats).

4. I don't know what universe you live in that you think it was realistic that the City of Austin was going to allow a developer to file a plat with no plan, ask for it to be exempted all those pesky city ordinances that inhibit urbanism from occurring in most of the rest of Austin, and just say - trust me, this will all work out, the market will decide. That wouldn't remotely be realistic and anyone who has worked with the city in any capacity (such as sitting on a transportation board) would know full well. And if Mueller wasn't planned and exempted from the city land-use policies then guess what would have happened
- the worst kind of sub-ubranism imaginable.

Mueller isn't perfect but it is moving the city in the right direction - the direction that you happen to be one of the loudest voices in favor of.

Or to look at your critique from a different angle, if Mueller is really suburban, as you charge, then I'm going to have to change my position on sub urbanism. Because if being dense, walkable, mixed use, variety of housing options, close to CBD, with shops, restaurants, theaters, businesses, employment centers, is suburban, then bring on suburban.

I have very little time. Apologies for the brevity.

1. Somebody made the point that VMU only happened at Mueller. Not true. There's actually other examples outside the ordinance and outside Mueller too, although they tend to be in the DMU zoning category (not CBD; but close-in).

2. Mueller has strict horizontal separation of uses now. Single-family houses which wouldn't be out of place in Plum Creek (or the DC suburbs). There is no walkability there - because there's nowhere to walk to! The only commercial is strip malls and a suburban-styled HEB which discourages walking by design.

No, Hyde Park and Clarksville aren't suburban like this. I walk from my house to Julio's/HPB&G all the time. The Mueller people can walk to... Chipotle? Qualitatively (experience) and qualitatively (distance/density) quite different. Likewise in Clarksville with walking to their small commercial nodes. If you don't see the difference between West Lynn and the HomeDepotAgglomeration, I don't know how to talk to you.

3. Assuming Mueller could not have been built any way but how it was ignores all the high-rises in West Campus which did NOT pause in 2008 BTW. Assuming the Town Center couldn't be built until (always a couple years from now) ignores the Triangle. Etc.

4. Not saying it would have been easy - but the Mueller process as it was took years. The Triangle was built-out (at least the "town center" competitor part) while Mueller was floundering. As flawed as it is, it's been done and it's moderately successful. The Mueller way was not the only option. And I'm not blaming the part of the process which allowed more than suburban development; I'm blaming the part of the process that the local neighborhoods co-opted and forced excessive rules on (i.e. most of what happened with Mueller was NOT "let's allow row houses and more height and less setbacks"; it was planning out each inch to say "row houses can ONLY GO HERE and have these eight million rules on them".

As for the general principle, Mueller is more of a problem for urbanism than a help - because for ten years now it's been strip malls and single-family houses which call themselves 'urban' and ruin the brand for everybody else. I see no sign this is changing. They're not walkable, unless your standard for walkable is a nice suburb (where people walk to the park or walk on trails for exercise). They're not mixed-use unless you think a bunch of apartments separated from houses separated from strip malls is mixed-use (horizontal mixed-use). They're not dense unless your standard is Allandale.

They have nice parks. That's about it.

[Global]

They have nice parks. That's about it.[/QUOTE]

I get it, you're no fan of Mueller, you're disappointed in how it fell short of your expectations for a new urban development. Well, as a fellow idealist myself, I appreciate your critique of Mueller, however, as has been said before by others...you are looking at Mueller in its early development, and importantly, not as someone who actually lives there and therefore knows what the reality is.

You say there is 'strict horizontal separation of uses'. Sure, it does look like that on paper, but when you actually live in the community you find that many single family houses share an alley with row homes - which ends up being more important than who lives across the street from you. Also, Wildflower center (affordable senior apartments is right next to current and future single family homes and row homes, which are in turn next to an area which to be developed for commerical use.

Further in the much hereto maligned Market District for being too suburban strip mall like - plans are underway for further apartment complexes which again are directly next to land commericaly zoned, and single family homes.

Finally, on either side of the new Piaggi Square park will be shop homes, mixed in with single family and row homes.

On paper what you say sounds right. If you were to actually walk or bike the neighborhood, you would see that because the scale of Mueller is rather dense it makes for small blocks, taking you very quickly from your home to a mixed use or commerical area.

Sometimes it's perfectly reasonable not to let the perfect get in the way of the good.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by M1EK

I have very little time. Apologies for the brevity.

1. Somebody made the point that VMU only happened at Mueller. Not true. There's actually other examples outside the ordinance and outside Mueller too, although they tend to be in the DMU zoning category (not CBD; but close-in).

2. Mueller has strict horizontal separation of uses now. Single-family houses which wouldn't be out of place in Plum Creek (or the DC suburbs). There is no walkability there - because there's nowhere to walk to! The only commercial is strip malls and a suburban-styled HEB which discourages walking by design.

No, Hyde Park and Clarksville aren't suburban like this. I walk from my house to Julio's/HPB&G all the time. The Mueller people can walk to... Chipotle? Qualitatively (experience) and qualitatively (distance/density) quite different. Likewise in Clarksville with walking to their small commercial nodes. If you don't see the difference between West Lynn and the HomeDepotAgglomeration, I don't know how to talk to you.

3. Assuming Mueller could not have been built any way but how it was ignores all the high-rises in West Campus which did NOT pause in 2008 BTW. Assuming the Town Center couldn't be built until (always a couple years from now) ignores the Triangle. Etc.

4. Not saying it would have been easy - but the Mueller process as it was took years. The Triangle was built-out (at least the "town center" competitor part) while Mueller was floundering. As flawed as it is, it's been done and it's moderately successful. The Mueller way was not the only option. And I'm not blaming the part of the process which allowed more than suburban development; I'm blaming the part of the process that the local neighborhoods co-opted and forced excessive rules on (i.e. most of what happened with Mueller was NOT "let's allow row houses and more height and less setbacks"; it was planning out each inch to say "row houses can ONLY GO HERE and have these eight million rules on them".

As for the general principle, Mueller is more of a problem for urbanism than a help - because for ten years now it's been strip malls and single-family houses which call themselves 'urban' and ruin the brand for everybody else. I see no sign this is changing. They're not walkable, unless your standard for walkable is a nice suburb (where people walk to the park or walk on trails for exercise). They're not mixed-use unless you think a bunch of apartments separated from houses separated from strip malls is mixed-use (horizontal mixed-use). They're not dense unless your standard is Allandale.

They have nice parks. That's about it.

1. I don't know who made the point that VMU is located only in Mueller. We both know that's not true, but we also both know that VMU is restricted to very few areas of Austin (mostly the CBD, a few designated transit corridors and, Mueller).

2. Hyde Park and Clarksville are great. There are homes in Clarksville that are between 100 and 150 years old. The oldest parts of Mueller are about 6 or 7 years old. My point earlier is that under the current land use regime Mueller as the POTENTIAL to be far more urban than either Hyde Park or Clarksville because of 1. restrictive land use policies, and 2. unbelievably active and strong NIMBY groups that stifle nearly every attempt at getting a variance. Again, it's 6 years old and most of that was during the credit crisis - give it some time to evolve.

Since you make a cheap shot with Chipotle I shall return the favor. Where's the closest farmers market to Hyde Park? Mueller. Does Clarksville have a brand new state of the art Children's Museum opening up a 5 - 10 minute walk of most of the neighborhood? I think you need to let Mueller evolve a bit before you pass judgment as which each new business that opens the critique seems more and more out of touch. If you want, I'll be happy to buy you a drink at Contigo (a 5 -10 minute walk from almost all of Mueller), and we can discuss what the near and mid-term future will bring in terms of businesses that people will be walking and biking to.

3. I can't speak to West Campus - but each one of those projects that continued certainly had funding commitments prior to the credit freeze in 2008. After that - there was no available credit. Zip. Nothing. There was no where in the world willing to lend money into commercial real estate. If you did not have commitments, there was no money. Mueller is several orders of magnitude greater than the Triangle or individual West Campus projects. There is simply no way the entire project would be underwritten as the risk is too great. It has to happen in pieces over time. In 2008 and on there was zero chance of additional funding. That's just the reality.

4. It's incorrect to say that Mueller has been single family houses for 10 years. It's been traditional SF homes found in suburbs (though very very few suburbs put the garages in the back and on alleys). It's also been innovative garden court homes, row homes, mueller house condos, traditional condos, apartments, granny flats etc, most of which are currently banned from Hyde Park and Clarksville. Want to build a four of five story VMU apartment complex in Clarksville? Go ahead, I double dog dare you to try and get that by Laura Morrison. Want to put in four or six-plex houses in Hyde Park - good luck getting that by Karen McGraw and co. who would immediately tar them as being "Stealth Dorms" or "McMansions"

It's not that I disagree with your vision. You and I are on the same side of the scale and appreciate always pushing for more urbanism. But when most of the city is languishing under land use policies far more backward and much more suburban than those allowed in the Mueller PUD it seems counter productive to continually bash Mueller for mostly not developing fast enough.

Rome and Mueller were not built in a day. Enjoy the process as it unfolds.

[M1EK]

[QUOTE=Komeht;6167911
2. Hyde Park and Clarksville are great. There are homes in Clarksville that are between 100 and 150 years old. The oldest parts of Mueller are about 6 or 7 years old. My point earlier is that under the current land use regime Mueller as the POTENTIAL to be far more urban than either Hyde Park or Clarksville because of 1. restrictive land use policies, and 2. unbelievably active and strong NIMBY groups that stifle nearly every attempt at getting a variance. Again, it's 6 years old and most of that was during the credit crisis - give it some time to evolve.[/quote]

HP and CV got where they are through a natural process of gradual development with far fewer rules than exist today. Mueller added even MORE rules than exist in normal Austin development today.

Since you make a cheap shot with Chipotle I shall return the favor. Where's the closest farmers market to Hyde Park? Mueller.

Wrong. It's at the Triangle, actually. Wednesday nights.

I feel I should probably not waste any more scarce time on this debate until you acknowledge some of these points I've made, like this one most recently, on which you were wrong - I don't really have time to waste on a circular battle otherwise.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by M1EK

HP and CV got where they are through a natural process of gradual development with far fewer rules than exist today. Mueller added even MORE rules than exist in normal Austin development today.



Wrong. It's at the Triangle, actually. Wednesday nights.

I feel I should probably not waste any more scarce time on this debate until you acknowledge some of these points I've made, like this one most recently, on which you were wrong - I don't really have time to waste on a circular battle otherwise.

Actually M1ek, I feel I always do go out of my way to acknowledge where I agree with you. Again, I think we share a similar view in the city and how we'd like it to evolve. I bet you anything we'd agree on much more than we disagree on. The point of my post have to also note where I disagree.

But in the spirit of glasnost, here goes: m1ek, fair point on the Traingle farmers market, I was not aware of this one. I'm sure it's great and I'll go pay a visit. As the Fonz used to say, I was wrrr....wrrr...wrro...I wasn't exactly right.

WRT the landuse codes of that HP and Clarksville evolved in you and I both would both like to go back to those days but we also both know that's impossible today. The best we can hope for is what the New Urbanists put forward which is a better land use code (preferably a form based code) than the one that has destroyed our city (and many others) for the last 50 years. One that takes the lessons (good and bad) of the past, combines it with our best understanding of the way modern cities work and
and then is implemented in way that the bureaucrats and NIMBYs can't do more damage than they already have done.

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by Komeht

Actually M1ek, I feel I always do go out of my way to acknowledge where I agree with you. Again, I think we share a similar view in the city and how we'd like it to evolve. I bet you anything we'd agree on much more than we disagree on. The point of my post have to also note where I disagree.

But in the spirit of glasnost, here goes: m1ek, fair point on the Traingle farmers market, I was not aware of this one. I'm sure it's great and I'll go pay a visit. As the Fonz used to say, I was wrrr....wrrr...wrro...I wasn't exactly right.

WRT the landuse codes of that HP and Clarksville evolved in you and I both would both like to go back to those days but we also both know that's impossible today. The best we can hope for is what the New Urbanists put forward which is a better land use code (preferably a form based code) than the one that has destroyed our city (and many others) for the last 50 years. One that takes the lessons (good and bad) of the past, combines it with our best understanding of the way modern cities work and
and then is implemented in way that the bureaucrats and NIMBYs can't do more damage than they already have done.

I disagree that Mueller is the best we can do. It's not taking the lessons we've learned at all - it's trying to force something which evolved organically, but then ignoring the good parts and only forcing the bad!

One obvious example - when I walk down Avenue B in Hyde Park, there is no VMU (this is the relatively low-density interior, after all); but there are individual lots with MF right next to individual lots with SF right next to individual lots with duplexes/garage apartments. Where's that kind of intra-block diversity in Mueller?

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by M1EK

I disagree that Mueller is the best we can do. It's not taking the lessons we've learned at all - it's trying to force something which evolved organically, but then ignoring the good parts and only forcing the bad!

One obvious example - when I walk down Avenue B in Hyde Park, there is no VMU (this is the relatively low-density interior, after all); but there are individual lots with MF right next to individual lots with SF right next to individual lots with duplexes/garage apartments. Where's that kind of intra-block diversity in Mueller?

One (and I read a lot of literature on urbanism), I don't know anyone who states you have to have a mix of housing in the same block. The importance is having a mix of housing in close proximity so that the community provides for lots of different housing opinions at different income levels. There are plenty of intersections in Mueller where there are two or three different housing option on each corner. You'll have to point to the sources or explain why it must be in the same block and why being across an intersection is insufficient. This is nothing like the suburban strict separation of uses where whole gated communities have nothing but SF detached in one area and down across an arterial is a whole other section of SF attached and then in another section is SF detached but a lower price point etc. There is nothing like that in Mueller as I'm sure you're quite aware of.

Two, HP and Clarksville and most of the rest of Austin are essentially under a strict preservation ordinance. They're no longer living evolving neighborhoods but museums. Not only is there no VMU in Hyde Park, unlike Mueller there never will be or can be under existing land use codes. The best Hyde Park can hope for is of this to happen on its periphery, segregated from the community, like the Triangle.

Finally, what is important is to have a variety of uses sprinkled throughout the neighborhood so that there can be the corner bar or the corner store etc. so that people can pick up a few basics or grab a burger and beer and chat abut latest neighborhood gossip etc. Avenue B, the street you mentioned, I believe is home to one of my favorite little corner stores in Austin (well I don't think it's on a corner but you get my meaning) - Avenue B grocery. I haven't looked up the zoning on Avenue B Grocery but its the kind of place that used to get built all the time and now is basically prohibited. In Mueller, they're at least attempting to introduce the corner store concept with the Mueller Shop Homes. Id like to see these available throughout the Mueller as I'm sure you'd prefer corner stores like Avenue B Grocery be made legal again throughout the city. But at least the shop homes are a start at reintroducing a mix of commercial and residential into areas in Austin that for a long long time would have been strictly residential. It's an interesting experiment and I hope it works in Mueller so that the rest of Austin may someday be freed from the strict use separation regime currently in place.

Now, this is not to bash HP and Clarksville, two neighborhoods I happen to cherish. But you seem to have a double standard here. Both HP and Clarksville first matured in a time where having a mix of housing was an option. That is no longer the case. You can't build Hyde Park and Clarksville in Hyde Park and Clarksvill anymore. But Mueller does allow and provide for this and given time to mature may and hopefully will evolve into the type of neighborhood with mix of housing, commercial, retail and employment in close proximty so that no or very few car trips are ever needed. Is it perfect? No. But it's a vast improvement over the landuse codes in the rest of Austin.

[H2O]

Originally Posted by M1EK

I disagree that Mueller is the best we can do. It's not taking the lessons we've learned at all - it's trying to force something which evolved organically, but then ignoring the good parts and only forcing the bad!

One obvious example - when I walk down Avenue B in Hyde Park, there is no VMU (this is the relatively low-density interior, after all); but there are individual lots with MF right next to individual lots with SF right next to individual lots with duplexes/garage apartments. Where's that kind of intra-block diversity in Mueller?

That kind of intermingling of uses and form types is NOT a recommended best practice in New Urbanism or urban design in general. New Urbanism employs the concept of the transect to allow a transition of uses and form types within a development or neighborhood. The uses and form types you mention could all exist in a single transect zone, but transitions within transect zones are still important. The general best practice in calibrating a form based code is to use like form types on a single block face, with the same or similar form types across the street. Transition in form types, such as single family to rowhouse or rowhouse to apartment block are generally handled at alleys, or sometimes across open spaces.

As much as you (or I or Jane Jacobs) find the kind of intermingling of uses and form types in older neighborhoods charming, the vast majority of people do not. Most people would regard a proposal to construct even a small apartment block next to their single family house as a direct attack on their property values. The unregulated intermingling of uses in the 19th Century city is what led to strict Euclidean zoning, nimbyism and the kind of ridiculous compatibility standards found in the current Austin Land Development Code.

As we move towards adopting a new LDC for Austin, many of us hope it employs New Urbanist concepts like form based codes and appropriate transitions found in the transect. That way future neighborhoods will look more like Mueller and less like Circle C. But as Komeht says above, you can't even build Hyde Park and Clarksville in Hyde Park and Clarksville anymore, and the likelihood of that ever being a possibility across the entire city is remote at best, and not even recommended by current best practices.

[Syndic]

The H-E-B at Mueller is opening July 26th if anybody wants to go check it out. It turned out really nice and I dare say that it is a beautiful building from the front. It does kind of feel like you're pulling in to pick someone up from the airport when you drive in. I see what they were going for now.

They have also started construction on the mixed-use AMLI apartment complex behind the children's museum. It's right in the heart of the development, so it will be the closest retail yet to most of the residents of Mueller. The Mueller community already seems pretty close-knit, but something like this should really tie it together. Hopefully it's a cafe like what's in the rendering. But I suppose when the town center is completed, there won't be any shortage of places within walking distance that they can enjoy.



They've also (finally) started doing site prep north of Philomena St. It will be a new park, some more houses, and lots of new streets.

[Syndic]

I just realized that they opened an eclectic convenience store at Mueller and that Mueller has become a popular place for food trailers.

[H2O]

Fun video of motorcycle tour of Mueller: http://youtu.be/8-4QfsNdw9U

Source: http://homesatmueller.com/

[lzppjb]

My aunt is hard at work at the HEB trying to get it ready for opening. Highly stressful right now and long hours. I'm confident it will turn out well.

[Syndic]

Here's a sneak peek at the H-E-B at Mueller. (There are more pics of the building after all the food pics.) Lots of wood accents and natural lighting. Seems like it will be a nice, relaxed place to shop. Though I may not be saying that once it's swarming with customers.